Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mannur Anjineya vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 September, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.84105 OF 2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANNUR ANJINEYA
S/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O NO.1, ITIGI VILLAGE
TALUK - HOSPET
DISTRICT - BELLARY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BASAVANAGOUD .T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER CUM
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY
3. SRI. ORVAVI SANNA BABU SAB
S/O LATE HANNUR SAB
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
2
3(A) SMT. RASAOL BEE
W/O LATE ORVAI SANNA BABU SAB
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O 191, 5TH WARD
NEAR DUAGAMMA TEMPLE
SIRIGERE VELLAGE
SIRUGUPPA (TQ), BALLARI DISTRICT
3(B) ITTIGI HONNUR SAB
S/O LATE ORVAI SANNA BABU SAB
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O 191, 5TH WARD
NEAR DUAGAMMA TEMPLE
SIRIGERE VELLAGE
SIRUGUPPA (TQ), BALLARI DISTRICT
3(C) AMEEN SAB
S/O LATE ORVAI SANNA BABU SAB
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O 191, 5TH WARD
NEAR DUAGAMMA TEMPLE
SIRIGERE VELLAGE
SIRUGUPPA (TQ)
BALLARI DISTRICT-580 120.
4. SRI. ORVAYI HONNUR SAB
S/O LATE HONNUR SAB
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
4(A) HUSSAIN BEE
@ HUSSENAMMA ANGADI
W/O LATE ORVAI HONNURSAB
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4(B) PEERAMMA
W/O LATE JADE HONNUR SAB AND
DAUGHTER IN LAW OF
LATE ORVAI HONNURSAB
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
3
4(B)(i) IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
JADE HONNUR SAB AND
GRANDSON OF
LATE ORVAI HOONNUR SAB
4(B)(ii) HONNUR VALI
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS
S/O LATE JADE HONNUR SAB
AND GRAND SON OF
LATE ORVAI HONNUR SAB
4(B)(iii) DADA BEE
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS
D/O LATE JADE HONNUR SAB
AND GRAND SON OF
ORVAI HONNUR SAB
(R4(B) (i TO iii) ARE MINORS REP BY
THEIR MOTHER GUARDIAN
SMT. PEERAMMA I.E. R4(B))
4(C) JAINABEE @ JAINAMMA
W/O LATE JAIN SAB
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
DAUGHTER IN LAW OF
LATE ORVAI HONNUR SAB
4(C)(i) SADDAM
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
S/O LATE JAIN SAB
GRAND SON OF
LATE ORVAI HONNUR SAB
4(C)(ii) CHAND BASHA
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
S/O JAIN SAB AND
GRANDSON OF
LATE ORVAI HONNUR SAB
4
(R4(C) (i TO ii) ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR
GURDIAN MOTHER SMT. JAINAMMA I.E. R4(C))
4(D) HONNUR BEE
D/O LATE ORVAI HONNUR SAB
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R4(A) TO R4(D) ARE R/O
NO.1, ITIGI VILLAGE, HOSPET (TQ)
BELLARY (DISTRICT)
5. SMT. ANGADI SHEKAN BEE
W/O LATE NABI SAB
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O NO. 1, ITIGI VILLAGE
HOSPET TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT.
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/O DATED 02.01.2023]
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALSURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A TO C),
R4(A TO D), R5;)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2012 PASSED BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT HEREIN BEING ARBITRARY,
ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND
JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.09.2024, THIS DAY
ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
5
C.A.V. ORDER
The petitioner in this case is challenging the
order dated November 29, 2012, issued by
Respondent No.2, as per Annexure-F. Respondent
No.2, after conducting an inquiry, concluded that the
petitioner had committed fraud by tampering with and
creating a grant in his favour. This was allegedly done
by inserting the petitioner's name into the original
grant order dated August 5, 1995, which was issued in
favour of Respondents 3, 4, and the husband of
Respondent No.5. Additionally, the petitioner has
questioned the appellate authority's order dated
28.9.2013 (Annexure-Y), which dismissed his appeal
and confirmed the order passed by Respondent No.2,
who serves as the Settlement Officer-cum-Deputy
Director of Land Records.
6
2. The subject matter of the petition concerns
agricultural land bearing Survey No. 139, measuring
17.16 acres, located in Itagi Village, Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District. This land is recognized as Jahagir land
under the Madras Estate Abolition Act, 1948. The
petitioner claims that his ancestors have been
cultivating 7 acres and 19 cents of this land and that
they remained in actual possession. Petitioner asserts
that various crops are grown on this land, and the
entire family depends on its income for their
livelihood. Despite this, the petitioner admits that his
family, being illiterate villagers, did not take steps to
legalize their holdings under the Madras Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Rytowari) Act, 1948(for
shot "Act, 1948").
3. The petitioner disputes the grant made in
favour of Respondents 3 to 5 for the entire extent of
the land as per the order dated August 5, 1995. He
7
relies on another grant order from August 5, 1995,
which he claims also includes his name, asserting that
it was issued following a spot inspection and local
inquiry conducted by Respondent No.2. Therefore, he
contends that 17.16 acres of land was jointly granted
to him and Respondents 3 to 5. However, Respondent
No.2, upon receiving a complaint from Respondents 3
to 5, conducted an inquiry and found that only
Respondents 3 to 5 were granted the land under the
original grant order dated August 5, 1995. Respondent
No.2 concluded that the petitioner had tampered with
the original grant order and inserted his name,
thereby rendering the modified document fraudulent.
4. The petitioner challenged this order on the
grounds that Respondent No.2, having issued a joint
grant in favour of both parties, had no jurisdiction to
review his own order dated August 5, 1995. The
petitioner's appeal before the appellate Tribunal was
8
subsequently dismissed. The petitioner, through his
senior counsel, argued that the impugned order by
Respondent No.2 amounted to an unauthorized review
of his order after 15 years, contending that there is no
power to review a grant under the Act of 1948.
Furthermore, the petitioner argued that Respondents
3 to 5 failed to challenge the grant within a reasonable
time, as the grant order was issued in 1995, and any
challenge should have been made within a reasonable
period.
5. In response, counsel for Respondents 3 to
5 argued that the petitioner had committed fraud by
inserting his name into the original grant order. They
claim that the grant order relied upon by the
petitioner was a fabricated document and that
Respondent No.2 had correctly reviewed the original
records to ascertain the fraud.
9
6. Upon an overall review of the records,
particularly the original documents, this Court finds
that the present case is a clear instance of fraud and
fabrication. The petitioner has admitted that he never
applied for the grant by filing an application. Given
this admission, the grant order on which the petitioner
relies appears to have been tampered with, likely in
collusion with officials from Respondent No.2. The
argument presented by the learned Senior Counsel
that Respondents 3 to 5 could not have approached
Respondent No.2 to seek a review of his grant order--
is entirely misconceived. Respondents 3 to 5 were
aggrieved by the tampering of the grant order, and as
the custodian of this document, it was well within the
jurisdiction of Respondent No.2 to conduct an inquiry
to determine whether the petitioner had manipulated
a public document.
10
7. During the inquiry, Respondent No.2 found
that the grant order on which the petitioner relied was
indeed a tampered document and correctly identified
it as fraudulent. In this context, this Court does not
accept the arguments advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner. The contention that there
was an inordinate delay of 17 years and that
Respondent No.2 lacked the authority to entertain the
application or review the matter after such a period is
also misconceived. After verifying the original records,
the Court is satisfied that the petitioner never applied
for the grant; only Respondents 3, 4, and the husband
of Respondent No.5 had done so. Following the
inquiry, Respondent No.2 lawfully granted the entire
extent of the petitioned land to these parties.
8. The judgments cited by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to this
case, as the petitioner's claim is based on fraudulent
11
grounds. It is a well-established legal principle that
fraud invalidates all proceedings; therefore, the plea
of limitation is not available to a party guilty of
committing fraud.
9. Upon examining the original grant, this
Court has observed a conspicuous inconsistency: the
insertion of the petitioner's name is in an entirely
different handwriting compared to the rest of the
document. This stark difference in handwriting
indicates that the document has been altered post-
issuance. The variation is not subtle or incidental;
rather, it is so pronounced that it raises a strong
presumption of tampering.
10. Furthermore, the original grant clearly
favoured the private respondents. The alteration,
which appears to have been done to include the
petitioner's name, suggests an attempt to falsely
12
establish the petitioner's entitlement to the property.
The fact that the handwriting does not match the rest
of the document undermines the authenticity of the
petitioner's claim and casts serious doubt on the
legitimacy of the document itself.
11. This Court finds that the tampering is
deliberate and calculated to mislead. Given these
observations, the document must be treated as
fraudulent, and any rights purportedly derived from it
by the petitioner cannot be upheld. The deliberate
insertion of the petitioner's name in a different
handwriting supports the finding that the grant order
has been manipulated to benefit the petitioner
unlawfully, thereby invalidating the document's
credibility and reinforcing the conclusion that the
original grant in favour of the private respondents has
been tampered with.
13
12. The petitioner, in paragraph 2 of the writ
petition, has expressly acknowledged that he failed to
seek the regularization of his holding under the
provisions of the Act, 1948. This failure to apply for
regularization under the Act is a critical admission that
demonstrates the petitioner's non-compliance with the
legal framework established for converting holdings
from the erstwhile Madras Estates into Rytowari
tenure. The Act mandates that individuals seeking to
retain holdings in their possession must apply within a
specified timeframe and follow the procedures laid
down therein. By the petitioner's own admission, he
did not fulfill this fundamental requirement, which
casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of his claim.
13. Moreover, the insertion of the petitioner's
name in the public records, despite his failure to
adhere to the statutory process, constitutes a clear
case of tampering with public documents. Public
14
records are meant to reflect the true and lawful
ownership of property, based on compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. In this case, the
unauthorized inclusion of the petitioner's name, in the
absence of any legal basis, suggests a deliberate
manipulation intended to mislead and distort the
official records. Such an act undermines the sanctity
of public documents and erodes the integrity of the
legal system.
14. Additionally, it is important to note that the
original grant of the property was made in favour of
the private respondents. This fact further corroborates
the conclusion that the petitioner's claim is without
merit. The private respondents hold the legitimate
title to the property, as evidenced by the original
grant. The petitioner's failure to apply for
regularization under the Act, coupled with the
unauthorized alteration of public records, reveals an
15
attempt to falsely appropriate property that rightfully
belongs to the private respondents.
15. The admissions made by the petitioner in
paragraph 2 of the writ petition decisively establish
the presence of fraudulent conduct. By admitting to
his failure to seek regularisation of his holding, the
petitioner has inadvertently confirmed that his claim is
founded on deceit. The tampering with public
documents, combined with the original grant
favouring the private respondents, provides
compelling evidence that the petitioner's actions
constitute a clear case of fraud.
16. This Court having examined the original
records found that Respondent No.2 had acted within
his jurisdiction to ascertain whether the petitioner had
tampered with a public document and rightly
concluded that the petitioner's claim was based on a
16
fraudulent grant order. The appellate tribunal also
confirmed this finding upon revisiting the original
records. This Court opines that fraud vitiates all
proceedings, and the plea of limitation is not available
to a party who has indulged in fraudulent conduct.
17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(ii) The original records pertaining to the grant
in question, including all documents related
to the inquiry conducted by Respondent
No.2, shall be preserved and securely
maintained by the concerned authority.
(iii) The Registrar of this Court is directed to
ensure that these records are handed over
to the competent authority.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to pay costs of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
to the private respondents within a period
of four weeks from the date of this order.
Failure to comply with this direction will
result in further legal consequences,
including the possibility of contempt
proceedings.
(iv) Compliance with this order shall be
reported by the petitioner to this Court.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
*alb/-
